To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

[Edenspirits73]

2 more detailed articles in main stream papers today questioning the Lucy Letby verdict - mirroring the well known New York Times article that wasn’t allowed here during her trial- surely with this much questioning, there should at least be a judicial review?

aibu?

If she is guilty after review then fair enough, but yet again convictions are being viewed as unsafe.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

I knew what I was looking for......at.

I agree. From what I have read I don't think the convictions are safe.

Did she not write ‘ I killed them on purpose as I am just not good enough to care for them’ she had been told by police her clinical practice had killed them. That’s how I interpreted it.

I'm not sure what type of evidence people need to believe she did it, as an overall picture her guilt is overwhelming. Also I believe she was on shift for ALL suspicious deaths-they just didn't look at all of them for the trial. Defence would've surely brought them up otherwise-but couldn't because oh look, LL was on shift for all those too! I believe they are looking into every baby she ever came into contact with so rest assured far more evidence will come out when they've finished operation Hummingbird in a couple of years. Not that anything will make some people believe she did it, for some unknown reason.

I think writing "on purpose" makes it very hard to interpret it in any other way than she did it deliberately.

Isn’t that the point though, there wasn’t any evidence, just being on duty shouldn’t be enough, there is reasonable doubt. No one has questioned if a doctor is capable of lying to cover their tracks. Very telling when experts have reported witnesses to the GMC, sticking their necks out there, I didn’t realise the deaths were air in the NG tubes I thought IV tubes.
the jury can only come to a guilty conviction on the evidence presented. Just watched the louse Woodard programme the doctor that damned her in her trial, has revoked his own testimony very brave man. She got found guilty, don’t think she was though. Luckily for her the judge overruled the jury. Not sure it would happen in this country.

I saw a different interpretation of the notes where someone said it looks like the bit above it says 'they went'.

So 'they went I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them'.

Some people say 'went' instead of said or use them interchangeably.
Not sure if Letby does though!

I just think it's astounding that someone could be convicted on that evidence in 2023. It's like something from decades ago.

I completely understand that the evidence that might be needed to convince everyone might have been impossible to get, even if at the time they had been looking for foul play in the post mortem but to be put away for life when there's no actual evidence that the babies were murdered just astounds me.

Of course if that's the evidence that people would expect to see that would put someone away then that means there could be potential serial killers on the loose for killers who can commit the 'perfect crimes' but I'm a firm believer that it's better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be locked up.
Other things could have happened here. The hospital seemed like a disaster.

We are not privy as to what she had been told, or the state of her mental health when she wrote that. She may have been told her clinical practice caused the deaths & she should have known & by practising purposely killed. Who knows? until the evidence is released how are we to know. These are questions that need to be asked. Also the papers were already calling her a murderer before the trial started. Fair?

It's hard to tell but I think the words are "they won't" as a continuation of the previous line "how will things ever be like they used to be-they won't" and it looks like that word has an apostrophe. Even if any of it was to do with what others were saying, doesn't really make sense that she'd add "on purpose" in there. Mind you none of her apparent reasons for doing it makes sense either. That note alone is pretty damning to me though and that's without all the other evidence. In fact I think when they released that note I changed my mind completely on the case-had thought she must be innocent before the trial started. I really have no doubt now.

Maybe she had an extreme reaction to not being allowed to go in nursey 1 all the time and interpreted that as some sort of failing, hence the "not good enough to care for them" or she did it out of spite.

Yeah just looked and it does look like 'they won't'. I just don't place a huge importance on the notes because they're all over the place.

I don't know much about the Lucia De Berk case but the wikipedia page says she had diary entries that showed she was obsessed with death (which she tried to burn). They also found books about crimes and murders at her house that she'd stolen from the hospital library, and she had also stole medicine and patient files.

And I'm sure a lot of that was seen as just as damning at the time....or it woud be now if it happened, but yet her conviction was overturned.

Surely she hasn't been "denied the right to appeal" 🤔 rather, her appeal has been denied - two very different things no?

No. She wrote a variety of phrases and scribblings in a personal notebook found at her house l. I think including “I killed them”. It could just be because she felt guilty or maybe she did kill them. It’s not definitive either way though.

There’s very little evidence that she did it other than that she was on duty when the babies died (as were others). It’s not enough imo - they could have died from natural causes (as was initially thought in most cases). Alternatively something else could have happened. She certainly could have killed them but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to convict. She’s definitely odd but that’s not enough.

I mean there's so much evidence it's hard to even keep track of but one that comes to mind is a baby collapsing SIX minutes after she'd finished texting her friend about not being allowed to have the baby in nursery one. She was seen in there even though she wasn't supposed to be, very briefly a colleague had left and then ran back when she heard alarms to see LL there. Pretty damning it'd happen the minute another staff member (the designated staff member for that baby) would leave right? Also LL had said to her friend she was going to "overcome it herself" (meaning to deal with the trauma of the last death) so interpret that how you like!

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23470171.lucy-letby-upset-frustrated-minutes-baby-collapsed/

I think ultimately this is probably why there has to be a retrial- there is too much doubt in the case and too many things that could be written off as something else. The conviction doesn’t seem to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and if you are going to lock someone up for life, you have to be pretty sure. The articles suggest otherwise.

Also, maybe they need experts on the jury as there has been the suggested that some of the evidence was too complex for a lay person to understand. That, combined with the media attention, raises clear issues if true.

Important the families get justice and answers and that everyone is sure.

White females are favoured she doesn't need no more doubt the fact she got convicted being a white female, she guilty.

I think she probably is guilty as do the jury. However I also remember mothers being prosecuted for deaths of their babies and years later we discovered they were innocent. People were baying for their blood at the time too!

The question is whether she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If you are going to use the diary entries as evidence then you need to give equal weight to the fact she also wrote that she didn't do it. Convicting someone of multiple murders on circumstantial evidence is concerning

I do worry about the way statistics are used and hope things have moved on since Sally Clark’s wrongful conviction. The table with all the nurses names and the 25 incidents really highlights Lucy as she has crosses for all of these and no other nurse does. It seems damning when you first look at it however there were 9 other deaths (when around 3 is the average) and likely more incidents that have not been tied to Lucy, so it does just seem like they’ve charged her with the selected incidents she was on duty for and then made up this table.

This is deeply concerning and it does seem to me that in 2023 we should have stronger evidence to convict someone of these types of crimes. I was expecting to be blown away by the science presented during the trial but even as a layperson to me it all sounded a bit wishy washy. This article basically confirms that it was. The fact that so many experts, some of them leading in their field, have concerns speaks volumes.

She was found by a doctor, standing next to a baby who was dying because their breathing tube had been misplaced. She hadn't pulled the emergency bell or attempted to escalate it/ call for help. It was a lucky coincidence the doctor walked in that room when he did. If I found a nurse next to a patient dying, not doing anything I would be highly suspicious of her intentions. She's clearly guilty. No emotion at all. Psychopathic behaviour.

Did you read the telegraph article?

Unlike other sectors, the NHS is incredibly protective of their own staff and their colleagues, they very very rarely assign blame to each other. My DH has worked in the NHS since 2010, my best friend has been a nurse since we graduated 20 years ago. That they could have a colleague with deliberate wrongdoing – let alone to this heinous degree – is almost unthinkable to them. They would much rather their department be at criticism for literally anything else than deliberate malpractice.

She has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by two juries, so whatever armchair experts think, there was sufficient evidence for that to happen. She has not been able to show grounds for an appeal. Her defence did not call any of the experts they had access to - as a lawyer it seems to me very likely because they thought they may not help her case and in particular, not stand up to cross-examination (all of the prosecution experts would have been subject to extensive cross-examination by the defence barristers who surely would have used all the arguments being made here). They did not call Lucy to give evidence on her behalf, probably for similar reasons. Of course, there’s no cross-examination when you just give a statement o a journalist.
i could never rule out a miscarriage of justice in lots of cases, but I’m not seeing what merits it in particular in this one.